“I have loved you,” says the LORD: Here as in 1.6; 3.7 and 3.13, the Assertion element of the dispute is introduced by a quotation formula. In 1.6 and 3.7, it is the longer formula “says the LORD of hosts,” but here and in 3.13 it is only the shorter form says the LORD. Translators should be careful to maintain the distinction. In some languages it will be necessary to put the verb of speaking before the direct quotation, especially at the beginning of the section. Good News Translation makes it clear who the LORD is addressing by adding “[says] to his people.” Contemporary English Version uses direct speech without an introductory formula: “Israel, I, the LORD, have loved you.” Other languages may have a preference for indirect rather than direct speech, but in a book like Malachi which uses dialogue extensively, direct speech should be preserved if at all possible. In languages in which indirect speech is unavoidable, translators could say, for example, “The LORD says that he has loved you.”
The word translated loved is a broad general term appropriate to a covenant relationship. Translators should avoid words that have strong sexual overtones. You is plural and refers to the whole nation. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition makes this clear by saying “I love you Israelites,” while Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 2. Edition says “I love you, you people of Israel.”
This sentence constitutes the prophet’s opening Assertion in his dispute with the people. Good News Translation expresses it very emphatically by saying “I have always loved you.” In some languages it may be more natural to express this with a present tense “I love you.” Translators should avoid giving readers the impression that the LORD used to love the people but does not love them anymore.
But you say, “How hast thou loved us?”: There is a strong contrast between the LORD’s Assertion and the people’s Objection, so if translators have a choice of terms for But, they should choose one that conveys the contrast forcefully; one such example is “On the contrary.” You is of course again plural.
The formula you say is used to introduce the Objection element in each dispute. See also 1.6, 7; 2.14 (Revised Standard Version “you ask”), 17; 3.7, 8, 13. In all these places, what follows is a question and translators may prefer to render it as “you ask.” The form How hast thou…? gives an old-fashioned feeling to the Revised Standard Version. This is not in the Hebrew, where the second person singular is normal use when one person is addressed. New Revised Standard Version uses the current English form “How have you…?” as do Good News Translation and most other modern English versions. In languages that make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural, us should be translated as exclusive.
Good News Translation and many other versions expand the question as befits the context to “How have you shown your love for us?” (similarly Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version). The people’s doubt arises from their lack of prosperity and political power.
“Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” says the LORD: This sentence begins the Response. It has the form of a negative rhetorical question, and is framed in such a way as to show that the expected answer is “yes.” Thus it has the force of a statement, “You know that Esau was Jacob’s brother,” and so it will be translated that way in a number of languages. The prophet was aware that he could rely on his audience’s knowledge of the history of their ancestors (Gen 25.19-26). Esau and Jacob were in fact twin brothers, and some languages may require this to be stated. Good News Translation restructures the question as a statement: “Esau and Jacob were brothers” (compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation), and in cultures where readers are not so familiar with the Old Testament, translators may choose to follow this example. In Hebrew there is no verb in the clause, and Good News Translation has used a past tense “were” rather than the present tense is. A similar change may be necessary in other languages to avoid giving the impression that Esau and Jacob were still alive in Malachi’s own day. The words translated says the LORD are not the same in Hebrew as the words translated in the same way earlier in the verse. The expression that occurs here is not found anywhere else in the book of Malachi. Its discourse function is probably to help mark the beginning of the Response element of the dispute. It is helpful to begin a new paragraph at this point, as do Good News Translation, New International Version, Beck, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.
Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau: Although the names Jacob and Esau are the same as in the previous sentence, they now stand both for the individuals and for the nations descended from them, as is made clear in verse 4. Good News Translation shows this by saying, “Jacob and his descendants … Esau and his descendants.” The descendants of Esau are the Edomites, that is, the people of Edom.
The main problem in translating this sentence lies in the verbs loved and hated. Most English versions use these words, and run the risk of representing the LORD as acting in an arbitrary and unpredictable way. Although the words are used in other contexts of ordinary human emotions, the important feature here is that they are used together to give a sharp contrast, and carry the meaning “I have loved Jacob [and his descendants] more than Esau [and his descendants].” Compare the description of Leah as “hated” in Gen 29.31, when the previous verse has made it clear that she was simply less loved than Rachel. (Compare also the parallel passages in Luke 14.26 and Matt 10.37, the first of which says “hate” and the second “loves … more than.”) This sentence is expressed in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh as “I have accepted Jacob and have rejected Esau,” and in Contemporary English Version as “I chose Jacob instead of Esau.” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente expresses this meaning more blandly as “I chose Jacob and not Esau.” In languages where the use of hated is likely to be misunderstood by readers, we recommend that translators should express the meaning in some way similar to New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, or Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. Paul quotes this sentence in Rom 9.13.
Translators should note that in Hebrew there is a stylistic feature called a chiasmus, in which the order of elements within the two clauses is reversed to give an A-B-B-A pattern. The Hebrew order is “I-have-loved (A) Jacob (B), but Esau (B) I-have-hated (A).”
In many languages such a change of order would simply be confusing, but in others it may be retained and may produce a strong rhetorical effect. Translators must consider the stylistic patterns of their own language in deciding whether or not to retain the chiasmus.
I have laid waste his hill country: Laid waste is an old-fashioned expression, which is replaced in New Revised Standard Version by “I have made his hill country a desolation.” Other terms used for “desolation” are “wilderness” (Jerusalem Bible), “desert” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Living Translation), and “wasteland” (New International Version, Beck). Translation models for this clause are “I have devastated the mountainous region occupied by the descendants of Esau, the Edomites” (Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) and “I have caused the … to become a barren wasteland.”
And left his heritage to jackals of the desert: The phrase his heritage refers to the land occupied by the Edomites, and Good News Translation translates it simply as “the land.” Translators should avoid any term for heritage that means that the Edomites literally inherited that land. They could say, for instance, “ancestral land.” Jackals are animals similar to foxes, wolves, or wild dogs. The phrase jackals of the desert shows that these animals live in inhospitable places. The fact that these creatures have taken over the Edomite land indicates the extent to which the land has been ruined (compare Jer 9.11; 10.22; 49.33; 51.37). The phrase is similar in structure to the expressions “the birds of the air and the fish of the sea” in Zeph 1.3. Just as there the descriptive phrases “of the air” and “of the sea” may be redundant in some languages, so here the phrase of the desert may be left out if necessary (as in Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Contemporary English Version has a restructuring of the last two clauses that may be a helpful model to some translators: “I turned Esau’s hill country into a barren desert where jackals roam.” In languages where it is necessary to state the sex of the jackals, translators should note that the Hebrew form is feminine. In cultures where jackals or even wolves are unknown, translators may use a general term; for example, “wild animals.” New English Bible and Revised English Bible do not mention jackals at all. Their renderings are based on the ancient Greek translation, but there is no need to follow this, as the Hebrew makes perfectly good sense.
In point of historical fact, the people of Edom were pushed out of their traditional homeland by invading Nabataean Arabs, probably between 500 B.C. and 450 B.C. It is striking that the prophet does not rely solely on events from the distant past to prove the reality of the LORD’s love for his people. Rather he chooses an event from his own days to show that the LORD’s love is still valid in his hearers’ lifetimes.
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Malachi. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .